{\rtf1\ansi\deff0\adeflang1025
{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\froman\fprq2\fcharset2 Symbol;}{\f2\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f3\fnil\fprq2\fcharset0 Lucida Sans Unicode;}{\f4\fnil\fprq2\fcharset0 Mangal;}{\f5\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Mangal;}}
{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue128;\red255\green255\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;}
{\stylesheet{\s0\snext0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033 Normal;}
{\s2\sbasedon17\snext18\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs36\ab\loch\f0\fs36 Heading 2;}
{\s3\sbasedon17\snext18\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs28\ab\loch\f0\fs28 Heading 3;}
{\s4\sbasedon17\snext18\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs24\ab\loch\f0\fs24 Heading 4;}
{\*\cs15\snext15\cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255 Internet Link;}
{\*\cs16\snext16\i\ai Emphasis;}
{\s17\sbasedon0\snext18\sb240\sa120\keepn\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs28\loch\f2\fs28 Heading;}
{\s18\sbasedon0\snext18\sb0\sa120 Text body;}
{\s19\sbasedon18\snext19\sb0\sa120\dbch\af5 List;}
{\s20\sbasedon0\snext20\sb120\sa120\noline\i\dbch\af5\afs24\ai\fs24 Caption;}
{\s21\sbasedon0\snext21\noline\dbch\af5 Index;}
}{\info{\creatim\yr2012\mo1\dy15\hr19\min53}{\revtim\yr2012\mo1\dy15\hr20\min3}{\printim\yr0\mo0\dy0\hr0\min0}{\comment LibreOffice}{\vern3400}}\deftab420

{\*\pgdsctbl
{\pgdsc0\pgdscuse195\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1020\margrsxn1125\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\pgdscnxt0 Default;}
{\pgdsc1\pgdscuse195\pgndec\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1134\margrsxn567\margtsxn567\margbsxn567\pgdscnxt1 HTML;}}
\formshade\paperh15840\paperw12240\margl1020\margr1125\margt1134\margb1134\sectd\sbknone\sectunlocked1\pgndec\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1020\margrsxn1125\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\ftnbj\ftnstart1\ftnrstcont\ftnnar\aenddoc\aftnrstcont\aftnstart1\aftnnrlc
\pgndec\pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033\qj{\afs28\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28
}
\par \sect\sectd\sectunlocked1\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1020\margrsxn1125\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\ltrsect\sbknone\pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Cornell University Law School. "Death Penalty : An Overview." }{\i\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Legal Information Institute}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
. Cornell University Law School, 15 Aug. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.}
\par \sect\sectd\sectunlocked1\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1020\margrsxn1125\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\pgndec\sbknone\pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033\qj{\afs28\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28
}
\par \pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033\qj{\afs28\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28
}
\par \pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033\qj{\afs28\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28
}
\par \sect\sectd\sectunlocked1\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1020\margrsxn1125\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\ltrsect\sbknone\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs36\ab\loch\f0\fs36{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Death Penalty: An Overview}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Congress or any state legislature may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for murder and other capital crimes. }{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a }{\i\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
per se}{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
 violation of the }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii" }\chcbpat3{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Eighth Amendment's}{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii" }\chcbpat3{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Eighth Amendment}{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} does shape certain procedural aspects regarding when a jury may use the death penalty and how it must be carried out.}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
 Because of the }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html" }{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Fourteenth Amendment}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}'s }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "file:///wex/due_process" }{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Due Process Clause}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, the Eighth Amendment applies against the states, as well as the federal government.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Eighth Amendment analysis requires that courts consider the evolving standards of decency to determine if a particular punishment constitutes a cruel or unusual punishment. }{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
When considering evolving standards of decency, courts both look for objective factors to show a change in community standards and also make independent evaluations about whether the statute in question is reasonable.}
\par \pard\plain \s3\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs28\ab\loch\f0\fs28{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Proportionality Requirement}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
T}{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
he U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a penalty must be proportional to the crime; otherwise, the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
 In performing its proportionality analysis, the Supreme Court looks to the following three factors: a consideration of the offense's gravity and the stringency of the penalty; a consideration of how the jurisdiction punishes its other criminals; and a consideration of how other jurisdictions punish the same crime.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
In the landmark case of }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=433:584" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Coker v. Georgia}{\i\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}},}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot apply the death penalty or the crime of raping an adult woman because it violates the proportionality requirement. The Court came to this conclusion by considering objective indicia of the nation's attitude toward the death penalty in rape cases. At the time only a few states allowed for executions of convicted rapists.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Twenty-one years later, in }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZS.html" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Kennedy v. Louisiana}{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZS.html" }{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} (07-343)}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} (2008), the Supreme Court extended its ruling in }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=433:584" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Coker}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, holding that the penalty is categorically unavailable for cases of child rape in which the victim lives. Because only six states in the country permitted execution as a penalty for child rape, the Supreme Court found the national consensus to hold its use in these cases as disproportionate.}
\par \pard\plain \s3\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs28\ab\loch\f0\fs28{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Principle of Individualized Sentencing}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
To impose a death sentence, the jury must be guided by the particular circumstances of the criminal, and the court must have conducted an individualized sentencing process. In the 2002 }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=536:584" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Ring v. Arizona}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a jury, rather than a judge, must find an aggravating factor to exist for cases in which those factors underlie a judge's choice to impose the death penalty rather than a lesser punishment. 536 U.S. 584. An aggravating factor is any fact or circumstance that increases the culpability for a criminal act.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
The Supreme Court further refined the requirement of "a finding of aggravating factors" in }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-980.ZO.html" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Brown v. }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-980.ZO.html" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}Sanders}{\i\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}. }{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
546 U.S. 212 (2006). For cases in which an appellate court rules a sentencing factor invalid, the Court ruled that the sentence imposed becomes unconstitutional unless the jury found some other aggravating factor that encompasses the same facts and circumstances as the invalid factor.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Another 2006 cases, }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1170.ZS.html" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Kansas v. Marsh}{\i\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, }{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
offered yet another clarification to the principle of individualized sentencing jurisprudence. After }{\i\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Marsh}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
, states may impose the death penalty for situations in which the jury finds the aggravating and mitigating factors to equally balance, without violating the principle of individualized sentencing.}
\par \pard\plain \s3\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs28\ab\loch\f0\fs28{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Method of Execution}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
A legislature may prescribe the manner of execution, but the manner may not inflict unnecessary or wanton pain upon the criminal. Courts apply an "objectively intolerable" test when determining if the method of execution violates the }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii" }\chcbpat3{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Eighth Amendment's}{\chcbpat3\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} ban on cruel and unusual punishments.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
State courts and lower federal courts have refused to strike down hanging and electrocution as impermissble methods of execution; however, the U.S. Supreme Court did not take up a method of execution case for 117 years until }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-5439.ZS.html" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Baze v. Rees }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-5439.ZS.html" }{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}(07-5439)}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}} in 2008. In }{\i\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Baze}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
 the Supreme Court held that lethal injection did not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment. This case resolved a controversial issue in light of recent evidence that a lethal injection's three-drug combination fails to alleviate pain and prevents the criminal from signaling such pain because of paralysis inducement.}
\par \pard\plain \s4\sb240\sa120\keepn\b\hich\af3\dbch\af4\afs24\ab\loch\f0\fs24{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Classes of Persons Not Eligible for the Death Penalty}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
More recently, in }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=536:304" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Atkins v. Virginia}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Supreme Court determined that executing mentally retarded criminals violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" because their mental handicap lessens the severity of the crime and therefore renders the extraordinary penalty of death as disproportionately severe. However, in }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-598.ZS.html#content" }\*\cs16\i\ai{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Bobby v. Bies}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, the Court held that states may conduct hearings to reconsider the mental capacity of death row inmates who were labeled mentally retarded before the Court decided }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=536:304" }\*\cs16\i\ai{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Atkins}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, because before }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=536:304" }\*\cs16\i\ai{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Atkins}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, states had little incentive to aggressively investigate retardation claims.}
\par \pard\plain \s18\sb0\sa120{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
In }{{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex-cgi/wexlink?wexns=USR&wexname=543:551" }\i{\fldrslt \cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255\rtlch \ltrch\loch
Roper v. Simmons}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}}, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty for all juvenile offenders. The majority opinion pointed to teenagers' lack of maturity and responsibility, greater vulnerability to negative influences, and incomplete character development. The Court concluded that juvenile offenders assume diminished culpability for their crimes.}
\par \sect\sectd\sectunlocked1\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1020\margrsxn1125\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\pgndec\sbknone\pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\aspalpha\ltrpar\cf0\kerning1\hich\af3\langfe2052\dbch\af4\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033\qj{\afs28\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28
}
\par }